Content uploaded by Laura Enthoven
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laura Enthoven on Jul 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
Available online 19 July 2021
0308-521X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Review
Local food systems: Reviewing two decades of research
Laura Enthoven
*
, Goedele Van den Broeck
Earth and Life Institute – Agronomy, UCLouvain, Croix du Sud 2, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
•Governments and civil society organi-
sations have actively promoted local
food systems over the past decades.
•We systematically test eight common
claims on local food systems against
multi-disciplinary scientic evidence.
•Their impact on social, economic and
environmental factors highly depends
on the type of supply chain, product and
country.
•There is no clear denition of a local
food scale and a critical lack of cross-
country comparable data.
ARTICLE INFO
Editor: Mark van Wijk
Keywords:
Local food systems
Review
Short food supply chain
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Food systems worldwide are under enormous pressure. Over the past decades, local food systems have
been promoted by governments and civil society organisations as a lever for change towards more inclusive,
resilient and sustainable food systems based on the belief of their many purported benets.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to test eight common beliefs on local food systems – from a consumer,
farmer, community and environmental perspective – against scientic evidence, with a focus on North America
and Europe.
METHODS: We conduct a systematic multi-disciplinary literature review and identify 123 peer-reviewed studies
on local food systems.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We nd that the impact of local food systems on different social, economic and
environmental factors highly depends on the type of supply chain under assessment, with important differences
across product types and countries. Hence, our review refutes the idea that local food is inherently good. In
addition, we highlight the confusion surrounding the denition of a local food scale and point out a critical lack
of cross-country comparable data hindering the possibility of drawing generalisable conclusions on the benets
and drawbacks of local food systems.
SIGNIFICANCE: A comprehensive review of multi-disciplinary scientic evidence conrming (or refuting) claims
on local food systems was missing, leading to possible counter-productive policies. Based on our ndings, we
suggest that policy-makers should invest in cross-country comparable data collection on local food systems
(especially in Europe), which would allow the scientic community to perform robust causal analyses on their
impacts on society.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: laura.enthoven@uclouvain.be (L. Enthoven).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103226
Received 23 April 2021; Received in revised form 5 July 2021; Accepted 9 July 2021
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
2
1. Introduction
Global population growth, rising income and increasing urbanisation
are placing enormous pressure on food systems worldwide (Nystr¨
om
et al., 2019). The need to transition towards more inclusive, resilient and
sustainable food systems is clear. As set by the Sustainable Development
Goals, this transition should ensure consumer access to safe, nutritious
food, improved remuneration of farmers, preservation of natural re-
sources and climate change mitigation (UN General Assembly, 2015).
The role that local food systems (LFS) may play in this transition is
increasingly drawing the attention of the general public, policy-makers
and researchers, especially in high-income countries (De Schutter,
2017). Particularly during global crises, such as the COVID-19
pandemic, LFS are often put forward as more resilient food systems
(Stephens et al., 2020). Over the past decade, governments worldwide
have actively promoted LFS, based on the belief in their purported
benets (Jones et al., 2004). For instance, in 2009, the USDA established
the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative”, and had invested
over one billion US$ in local and regional food projects by 2014 (Ahearn
et al., 2018). In Canada, the government recently created the “Local
Food Infrastructure Fund”, a ve-year, CAN$50 million initiative ending
in 2024 aiming at supporting “community-based organisations with a
mission to reduce food insecurity by establishing and/or strengthening
their local food system” (Government of Canada, 2019). The European
Commission for its part has set the “Farm to Fork Strategy” in 2020,
which mentions that “with a view to enhance resilience of regional and
local food systems, the Commission in order to create shorter supply
chains will support reducing dependence on long-haul transportation”
(European Commission, 2020).
Eight claims surrounding LFS are often put forward by governments
and civil society organisations. LFS are supposed to improve consumers’
access to healthy food (claim 1), and consumers are believed to be
willing to pay a higher price for local over non-local food (claim 2). It is
said that participating in LFS provides farmers with a high sense of social
recognition (claim 3), and that it benets them economically (claim 4).
Moreover, looking at the community as a whole, LFS would foster social
ties (claim 5) and boost the local economy (claim 6). Finally, LFS are said
to be benecial for the environment due to the use of environmentally-
friendly production practices (claim 7), and reduced impact on climate
change (claim 8).
Although policy-makers continue to support LFS based on the
assumption that “local” is inherently good, a review of the scientic
evidence conrming (or refuting) their multiple benets is missing,
leading to possible counter-productive policies. Here we provide a sys-
tematic review of the scientic literature on LFS in high-income coun-
tries, with a focus on North America and Europe. This will allow for
researchers in the eld to visualise which specic gaps still need to be
lled, and for policy-makers to make enlightened decisions without
having to go through a large body of scientic literature. We rst explain
the various denitions associated with LFS and provide data on the
importance of LFS. We then test the common beliefs on LFS against
scientic evidence. We conclude by formulating policy recommenda-
tions and outlining a research agenda for the broader scientic
community.
2. Background
2.1. Denition of local food systems
There is no universal denition of LFS, mainly because different in-
terpretations of the “local” scale exist. In the political sphere, LFS are
dened differently across the world. In the USA, the US 2008 Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act denes a local food product as one that is
marketed within an area that is “less than 400 miles (approx. 644 km)
from the origin of the product, or in the State in which it is produced”. In
Canada, food recognised as local is “food produced in the province or
territory in which it is sold, or food sold across provincial borders within
50 km of the originating province or territory” (Government of Canada,
2013). In the EU, Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 states that the denition
of local markets eligible for support by the European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development (EAFRD) shall be specied in Member States’
rural development programmes. Hence, the local food scale varies across
EU countries. Still, the EU Joint Research Centre describes an LFS as “a
food system in which foods are produced, processed and retailed within
a dened geographical area (within a 20 to 100 km radius approxi-
mately)” (Kneafsey et al., 2013).
In the scientic literature, meanings of “local food” vary depending
on the authors and context of the research. Local food systems may
generally be related to three domains of proximity: geographical prox-
imity (e.g. physical locality, distance between food production and
consumption), relational proximity (e.g. close relationship between ac-
tors within the food system) and proximity in values (e.g. place of origin,
traceability, freshness, quality). Still, geographical proximity constitutes
the basis for dening LFS, while the other dimensions of proximity
represent additional features (Eriksen, 2013).
Supply chains in LFS are organised in various ways, with different
types of selling arrangements between producers and buyers, different
forms of interaction between consumers and producers, and different
levels of commitment from consumers (Table 1).
1
Most authors depict
short food supply chains (SFSC) as the main form of distribution chan-
nels used in LFS, referring to a reduced number of intermediaries –
generally maximum one – between producers and consumers. Yet, it is
essential to distinguish between the concepts of LFS and SFSC, which are
Table 1
Local food distribution channels.
Producer-buyer
selling
arrangement
Producer-
consumer
interaction
Consumer
commitment
Direct-to-consumer SFSC
Farmers’ markets Spot market;
relational contract
Face-to-face Low
On farm sales (pick-
your-own, shop)
Spot market;
relational contract
Face-to-face Low
Food boxes (home
delivery, pick-up
point)
Relational
contract; formal
contract
Face-to-face;
proximate
Low to high
a
Community
supported
agriculture (CSA)
Formal contract Face-to-face;
proximate
High
Direct-to-retail SFSC
Consumer-owned
retail food
cooperative
Relational
contract; formal
contract
Proximate Low to high
b
Local independent
retailers
Relational
contract; formal
contract
Proximate Low
Restaurants, caterers Relational
contract; formal
contract
Proximate Low
Institutions (schools,
hospitals, prisons)
Formal contract Proximate Low
Conventional supply chains
Supermarkets, large
food retailers
Relational
contract; formal
contract
Proximate;
spatially-
extended
Low
a
Some food box schemes require consumers to subscribe, others do not.
b
Some consumer-owned retail cooperatives require consumers to subscribe or
become a member of the cooperative, others do not.
1
The types of selling arrangements are dened based on Leonardo et al.
(2015) and Peterson (2001), and forms of interaction on Marsden et al. (2000)
and Renting et al. (2003).
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
3
often wrongly used interchangeably as SFSC may not be local, while LFS
may not involve SFSC. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) sales are one form of
SFSC. In DTC channels, selling arrangements between producers and
buyers can either be spot market based – one-off sales with immediate
exchange at current prices, e.g. at a farmers’ market or at an on-farm
shop; involve a relational contract – immediate exchange at current
prices but implying repetitive transactions between a particular pro-
ducer and buyer, e.g. preferred producer at a selling venue or certain
food boxes schemes; or a formal contract – agreement between pro-
ducers and buyers on future repetitive sales with a predened pricing
scheme, e.g. in certain food boxes schemes or in Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA).
2
DTC generally involve face-to-face interactions be-
tween producers and consumers, with low to high consumers’ commit-
ment, depending on the specic channel.
3
Other forms of SFSC, called direct-to-retail (DTR) chains, are typi-
cally based on either relational or formal contracts between producers
and buyers, and do not imply face-to-face interactions between pro-
ducers and consumers. Rather, they imply proximate interactions which
require food to be produced and sold in the same “location”. DTR
channels include sales through consumer-owned food retail co-
operatives, local independent retailers (including online retailers), res-
taurants, caterers, and institutions such as schools and hospitals
(Marsden et al., 2000; Renting et al., 2003; Sch¨
onhart et al., 2009). In
these channels, consumers’ commitment to particular producers is
usually low, except in the case of consumer-owned cooperatives.
Yet, supermarkets and large retailers – considered to be conventional
supply chains –are sourcing food locally as well (Abatekassa and
Peterson, 2011; Jones et al., 2004; Low et al., 2015; Martinez et al.,
2010; Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021). Capitalising on the local food
movement, international supermarket chains such as Aldi, Ahold
Delhaize, Carrefour, Lidl and Tesco widely advertise their commitment
to local growers. Conventional channels engaged in local sourcing
generally involve a relational or formal contract with producers, with
proximate or spatially-extended interactions between producers and
consumers. Spatially-extended interactions mean that consumers pur-
chase food that is not locally produced per se, but laden with informa-
tion about the place of production and those producing it (through a
regional label for example).
2.2. Importance of LFS in North-America and Europe
Even though over 80% of global food consumption is still supplied by
domestic production (Geyik et al., 2021), national data on LFS that are
collected in cross-country comparable ways are scarce. Data on DTR
sales and local food sales through conventional supply chains are
completely missing. Only seven countries across Northern America and
Europe have easily accessible published statistics on farm DTC sales at
national or regional level.
Fig. 1 shows the percentage of farms selling at least part of their
production through DTC channels in 2016. The average for Austria,
Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland (European countries)
amounts to 15.8% of total farms in each country. This is similar to the
ndings from the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey (FSS) in 2007, which
estimated that on average, 15% of EU farms were selling more than half
of their production directly to consumers. While large differences
remain between countries, this suggests that participation in DTC
channels did not increase substantially between 2007 and 2016. The
USA and Canada have a lower percentage of farms involved in DTC
channels (5.6% and 12.7%, respectively).
Data on local food sales volume and value, as well as types of com-
modities, are largely missing. A main exception is the USA, where the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has collected extensive
data on direct sales since the late 70s through Censuses of Agriculture
and the Agricultural and Resource Management Survey (ARMS) (Ahearn
et al., 2018). It is, to our knowledge, the only country that has been able
to monitor trends on the importance of DTC sales over time, based on a
stable ve years’ interval in data collection (except for 1987). Fig. 2
depicts that the percentage of US farms using DTC channels has slightly
varied over time, but overall the difference between 1978 and 2015
seems insignicant (5.7% vs 5.6%). However, a substantial rise in DTC
sales value is observed, in particular between 2012 and 2015 (150%
increase). Even so, the percentage of DTC sales in all US farm sales re-
mains very low (0.82%), which is likely due to the fact that farms
engaged in DTC marketing tend to be small-scale enterprises (Aubert,
2015; Bauman et al., 2018; Detre et al., 2011; Kneafsey et al., 2013; Low
et al., 2015; Monson et al., 2008; Plakias et al., 2019; Torres et al.,
2017).
3. Literature review
Our multi-disciplinary literature review was conducted following a
series of systematic steps, based on Koutsos et al. (2019) (PRISMA
methodology adapted to agricultural sciences research). These include:
1) scoping, 2) planning, 3) identication or search, 4) screening, 5)
eligibility assessment, 6) interpretation and presentation. During the
scoping process, we identied eight common claims on LFS, based on an
exploratory search for related grey-literature reports, media articles and
NGO websites. To analyse the evidence on these claims in a systemic
way, we purposefully grouped them under four components of the food
system: consumers, farmers, the community as a whole, and the envi-
ronment. Then, as part of the planning process, we dened the following
search terms that were used separately or in combination: local, global
food systems, short food supply chains, direct marketing, community
supported agriculture, alternative food networks, consumers’
willingness-to-pay, nutrition, health, farmers’ welfare, rural develop-
ment, environmental impact, biodiversity, energy, and climate change.
During the identication phase, an extensive number of peer-reviewed
articles were retrieved from searches in Scopus and Google scholar.
Articles that were referenced in this rst selection were also investigated
and added when relevant. Zotero software was used to screen and
classify the articles efciently.
The following eligibility criteria were used to retain a study in our
review: 1) the study was published in English between 2000 and 2020
(December)
4
; 2) the study location is in Europe or North America; 3) the
study is experimental or observational (i.e. survey-based case study,
participant observations, documentation review)
5
; and 4) the study
explicitly investigates at least one of the following topics linked to LFS:
consumers’ health and nutrition, willingness-to-pay for local food,
farmers’ welfare and social recognition, community and local economic
development, environmental resources degradation and climate change.
A study was excluded if it did not meet any of the above-mentioned
criteria, or if the methodology provided was insufciently clear to
assess research quality and potential biases.
Our nal selection comprises 123 articles. In addition, 4 grey-
literature reports were included based on their clear importance in the
2
A CSA is a community-based organisation of growers and consumers,
wherein consumers agree to provide direct, up-front support for the local
growers who produce their food, and the growers agree to do their best to
provide a sufcient quantity and quality of food to meet the needs and ex-
pectations of the consumers (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2016).
3
Consumer commitment is considered low when consumers are not bound to
a specic producer or producer group (through a subscription for example), and
high otherwise.
4
Hence, some relevant non-English literature may not be included in this
review.
5
Literature reviews and theoretical discussions were excluded from the
selection.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
4
literature on LFS and contribution to the surrounding political debate.
The number of empirical studies addressing the eight claims has
signicantly increased between 2000 and 2020 (Fig. 3). Almost half of
the studies investigate local food channels for fruit and vegetables
(46%), about a third for meat, dairy or eggs (29%), 17% for processed
food and beverages (e.g. jam, bread, beer, wine), 7% for grain and eld
crops, and 1% for other commodities (e.g. nuts). In terms of geographic
coverage, about half of the studies focus on LFS in the USA – likely due to
a higher data availability –, 3% in Canada, and the rest in Europe, with
Italy, the UK, Spain, Germany and France as top ve examined countries
(Fig. 4). Section 4 presents the results of our analysis and discusses the
generalisation of the conclusions made by authors.
4. Claims
4.1. LFS increase consumers’ access to healthy food
Local food, in particular fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products,
is generally seen as fresh, not highly-processed food (i.e. no added
sugars, excess sodium, and unhealthful fats), and therefore represents a
healthy option. However, Edwards-Jones et al. (2008) argue that it is not
valid to state that locally produced food will automatically be of higher
nutritional quality than non-local food. Rather, food quality depends on
time since harvest and the type of processing to which produce are
exposed (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008; Harvard University, 2019). Thus,
supply chain characteristics are likely more important in determining
the quality of food than the distance between producer and consumer. In
this sense, canned and frozen vegetables and fruit may even be as
nutritious as fresh produce, and more cost-effective for meeting daily
vegetable and fruit recommendations (Miller and Knudson, 2014;
Rickman et al., 2007). In addition, imported agri-food products need to
comply with stringent food safety and quality requirements, especially
in the EU. Standards are less present in LFS (particularly in SFSC), where
food safety and quality are rather based on trust between producers and
consumers (Cerrada-Serra, 2018; Prigent-Simonin and H´
erault-Four-
nier, 2005). Moreover, international food trade has the potential to
provide a more nutritious and diverse food supply, especially in coun-
tries where agro-ecological conditions do not allow for year-round, food-
diverse production (Kinnunen et al., 2020).
Regarding the empirical evidence, no causal studies addressing this
claim were found. Results are based on observations and basic statistical
tests with no counterfactual, all focussing on DTC channels. Mostly,
evidence shows a positive correlation between local food outlets and
consumers’ health. Berning (2012), Bimbo et al. (2015) and Salois
(2012) nd that improved access to local food through different DTC
channels is negatively associated with individual weight outcomes and
obesity (based on self-reported BMIs in the USA and Italy). The effect of
CSA is found to be signicantly higher than that of farmers’ markets
(Berning, 2012). Allen et al., 2017 also nd that CSA in the USA has a
positive impact on members’ dietary behaviours and health – including
signicant daily increases in vegetable consumption, fewer meals
consumed away from home, and less intake of processed foods. These
ndings are in line with Ostrom (2007), who reports that out of 624
surveyed CSA members in the USA, around 90% stated that their
household dietary habits had changed positively as a result of CSA
membership. In low-income communities in the USA, Evans et al. (2012)
Fig. 1. Percentage of farms per country using DTC distribution channels in 2016 (USA: 2015; Netherlands 2017). Source: National Statistics.
Fig. 2. Percentage of farms using DTC channels and of value of DTC sales in total farm sales in the USA over time Source: USDA.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
5
Fig. 3. Number of publications per year included in this review.
Fig. 4. Share of publications per study country (a) and product type (b) included in this review.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
6
note signicant increases in the consumption of fresh fruit and vegeta-
bles over 12 weeks with the establishment of two local farm stands.
Similarly, Sadler (2016) investigates a farmers’ market expansion and
move in Michigan, bringing it closer to a bus station. As a consequence,
mobility-constrained and low-income residents throughout the region
have gained improved access to fresh food. Yet, counter to Evans et al.
(2012), the study reports a higher percentage of customers purchasing
prepared foods at the market after its move, and no increase in the share
of fruit and vegetables consumed.
4.2. Consumers are willing to pay more for local over non-local food
As it is often claimed that consumers are willing to pay a premium for
local over non-local food products, we review quantitative studies esti-
mating consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for local food. The studies
generally use two methodological approaches: non-hypothetical exper-
iments (in-store surveys, including auctions) or hypothetical choice
experiments. In most studies, survey respondents are better educated
and with higher income levels than the average local population
(Brown, 2003; Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009; Carroll et al., 2013;
Giraud et al., 2005; Grebitus et al., 2013; Hasselbach and Roosen, 2015;
James et al., 2009; Kiss et al., 2020; Loureiro and Hine, 2002; Nganje
et al., 2011; Onken et al., 2011; Onozaka and McFadden, 2011;
Schneider and Francis, 2005; Willis et al., 2016). Hence, WTP estimates
are only valid for this type of respondents (i.e. not representative of the
average population, especially not of individuals with low-income
levels). This is mostly due to (1) self-selection bias when consumers
respond to mailed surveys, (2) consumers being approached at a
particular purchasing venue (such as a farmers’ market or supermarket)
frequented by a specic public. Still, if LFS are to take up a larger share
of the food system, it is important to evaluate whether the general public
is also willing to pay a premium for such food.
Generally, evidence shows that consumers are indeed willing to pay
a premium for local over non-local food. In several cases, this premium is
even higher than for organic food or other sustainability claims (Gracia,
2014; Gracia et al., 2013; Hempel and Hamm, 2016; Loureiro and Hine,
2002; Onozaka and McFadden, 2011; Printezis and Grebitus, 2018).
Still, WTP is shown to vary with consumers’ demographic characteris-
tics, socio-economic situation, connection to farming and household
location (rural vs urban, region, country). Most studies nd that women,
older, wealthier people, with ties to agriculture, and a supportive
behaviour towards environmentally friendly practices (including
organic production) are willing to pay the highest premium (Brown,
2003; Campbell et al., 2010; Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009; Chang
et al., 2013; De-Magistris and Gracia, 2016; Hempel and Hamm, 2016;
Onozaka and McFadden, 2011; Vapa-Tankosi´
c et al., 2020; Willis et al.,
2016). Moreover, buying habits (e.g. experience with buying local or
organic food), selling venues and the specic product and quantity
bought inuence consumers’ WTP for local food (Adalja et al., 2017;
Brown, 2003; Campbell et al., 2010; Carpio and Isengildina-Massa,
2009; Carroll et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2013; Fan et al., 2019; Giraud
et al., 2005; Gracia et al., 2012; Grebitus et al., 2013; Hasselbach and
Roosen, 2015; Hempel and Hamm, 2016; Hu et al., 2012; Kiss et al.,
2020; Loureiro and Hine, 2002; Nganje et al., 2011; Onken et al., 2011;
Printezis and Grebitus, 2018; Tempesta and Vecchiato, 2013; Umberger
et al., 2009; Vapa-Tankosi´
c et al., 2020; Willis et al., 2016; Yue and
Tong, 2009). Printezis and Grebitus (2018) highlight differences in WTP
for local food products based on the distribution channel used – on
average, consumers in Phoenix and Detroit (USA) are willing to pay a
premium for local food, but not when it is sold at farmers’ markets or
purchased directly from an urban farm (i.e. thus only at grocery stores).
Giraud et al. (2005) show that WTP for local specialty products in New
England (USA) varies with price levels (i.e. low-end vs high-end prod-
ucts), and across states. Finally, Tempesta and Vecchiato (2013) nd an
inverse relationship between the quantity consumed and the WTP for
locally produced milk in Northern Italy.
It is worth noting that evidence on consumers’ preferences for the
origin of animal feed used in locally-produced food is scarce. Still,
Profeta and Hamm (2019) and W¨
ageli et al. (2016) investigate con-
sumers’ WTP for products originating from animals fed on local feed in
Germany – the rst for conventional and organic products (eggs and
pork), the latter for organic products only (milk, eggs and pork). Overall,
they nd that consumers do value the local origin of feed, and that the
higher the local feed-share used in animal production, the higher the
WTP.
4.3. Farmers have a great sense of social recognition in LFS
German philosopher Alex Honneth argues that by being able to
contribute to a healthy society through work, individuals feel recog-
nised, in turn contributing to their own well-being (Angella, 2016;
Honneth, 2010). Based on Honneth’s theory, there are two main ways in
which LFS may lead to farmers’ sense of recognition. First, through
traceability (i.e. the ability to nd out where and how a product was
made), which is at the core of LFS, consumers may recognise the role and
importance of farmers and other actors along the chain, including less
visible actors, such as women. In turn, traceability may help consumers
make informed food choices, thereby enabling them to participate more
fully in the shaping of inclusive food systems (Coff et al., 2008). Second,
consumers may show greater interest in production practices and con-
straints when purchasing food in LFS. This increased interest in agri-
food systems may trigger wider behavioural changes, including the
will to exchange skills and get involved in citizen mobilisation (Kneafsey
et al., 2013; Mundler and Laughrea, 2016). By noticing such change,
farmers may feel esteemed for their social contribution. However, when
LFS do not involve a direct contact between producer and consumer, it
limits the potential for reconnection between them, as mutual recogni-
tion is anchored in both psychological and physical interactions
(Angella, 2016).
Measuring a sense of recognition can, by its very nature, only be
realised based on perceptions. Hence, all studies providing insight into
this claim focus on case studies with small sample sizes, as no large
databases exist reporting such precise qualitative information (to the
best of our knowledge). All studies found on this claim focus on SFSC
(both DTC and DTR channels) and omit conventional local channels.
Generally, empirical evidence nds that farmers do indeed feel a
great sense of social recognition and acknowledgement of their work in
SFSC. In fact, this feeling is often part of the main motivations behind
farmers’ participation in SFSC. Farmers in Quebec cite the ability to
interact with buyers as the key reason for selling through direct channels
(Mundler and Jean-Gagnon, 2019). Similarly, Benedek et al. (2018)
show that farmers’ preference for farmers’ market in Hungary is stron-
ger with farmers who are specically looking to directly interact with
customers. This is in line with ndings by Kirwan (2006), who reports
that farmers selling at farmers’ markets in the UK highly appreciate the
sense of respect, attention and personal recognition that they receive
from their customers. Charatsari et al. (2018) observe that farmers’
perception of their acceptance by the local community increases their
willingness to participate in SFSC channels in Greece. Mancini et al.
(2019) investigate local Parmigiano Reggiano supply chains in Italy and
report that producers value SFSC mainly to gain reputation and increase
their level of self-esteem. Finally, Demartini et al. (2017) nd that
farmers selling through SFSC in northern Italy favour direct relation-
ships with consumers to highlight the “real” value of their produce and
increase consumer awareness about food production.
Regarding less visible actors, Park (2010) note that women farmers
tend to sell a larger share of their produce through local channels than
men (both through SFSC and conventional channels within 100 miles of
the farm’s location). Although this observation does not allow for the
validation of the claim under assessment, nor for any causal interpre-
tation, it points out that less visible farmers may use LFS to increase their
social recognition. Still, Sage (2003) highlights that the “grant of regard
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
7
from a small band of loyal customers does not sustain livelihoods or
ensure fullment, as the abandonment of smallholdings by disillusioned
and ‘burnt-out’ producers testies”.
4.4. Participation in LFS economically benets farmers
Three economic theories may explain why farmers may (or may not)
economically gain from selling in LFS at individual level: principal-agent
theory (applied to the concept of value-added distribution), transaction
costs theory, and capability theory of the rm. First, while the nal value
of a product generally builds up through the joint input of different
actors along the supply chain, the distribution of the value-added
6
among them depends on the internal governance structure and bargai-
ning power relations. According to principal-agent theory, agents, or
actors in the supply chain, can increase their bargaining power by
reducing their dependence on others (Ruben et al., 2007). In LFS,
farmers may do so in two different ways. One is by selling their produce
directly to consumers – DTC sales may lead to a price premium over
longer supply chains due to farmers’ ability to set their own prices. The
other is by combining several distribution channels, including those
linked to niche markets for specialty produce (e.g. local label) (de Roest
et al., 2018). This tactic also represents a diversication strategy that
reduces the economic risk associated with the dependence on a single
channel (de Roest et al., 2018; Inderhees and Theuvsen, 2009; Izumi
et al., 2010).
Second, transaction cost theory assumes that each selling arrange-
ment produces coordination costs of deciding, planning, and negotiating
the terms of the sale (Rindeisch, 2020; Williamson, 1979; Young,
2013). While transaction costs will likely be particularly high in DTC
channels due to the many individual transactions required, they may be
relatively low in DTR and conventional local channels due to economies
of scale. Indeed, both retailers and institutions (such as schools and
hospitals) tend to purchase larger volumes at once to decrease their own
transaction costs (de Roest et al., 2018; Izumi et al., 2010).
Third, the literature on rm capabilities and learning suggests that
developing the capability to engage in specic supply chain activities
effectively may be highly difcult and time-consuming (Geref et al.,
2005; Penrose, 1959; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Teece, 2019). For
farmers selling through SFSC specically, internalising processing and
marketing activities may thus increase costs associated with skills’
development and additional labour requirements (Cesaro et al., 2020).
Regarding the empirical evidence, it is important to note that all
studies found on this claim focus on SFSC (DTC and DTR); with the
notable exception of Park (2010) who also investigate local food sales
through conventional channels. Most studies compare economic per-
formance among farmers selling at least part of their production through
SFSC, but not with those farmers who do not. Hence, it is difcult to
establish whether a particular farmer would be better off not using SFSC
at all. Moreover, disentangling the economic benets of participating in
LFS is challenging, as farmers often sell their produce through various
local and global channels (Aubry and Kebir, 2013; Malak-Rawlikowska
et al., 2019; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon, 2019). Doing so would require
detailed data on the share of production sold through different channels
at farm level, which is greatly lacking. This is likely why no study was
found demonstrating a causal link between the degree of participation in
LFS and farmers’ economic performance.
The literature reports mixed effects of participation in SFSC on
farmers’ economic performance. While Chen et al. (2019) nd the effect
of SFSC participation on gross farm income in the USA to be insigni-
cant, Park et al. (Park and Sene, 2018; Park and Wozniak, 2014) report
that US farmers who participate in SFSC experience substantial declines
in gross farm income compared to farmers who do not engage in any
type of direct marketing. The two above mentioned studies use a binary
variable to assign farmers’ participation in SFSC channels. Yet, the effect
of SFSC participation on farmers’ performance may vary depending on
the share of production sold through each channel by each farmer. In
fact, Izumi et al. (2010), Malak-Rawlikowska et al. (2019), and Zwart
and Mathijs (2020) nd that even when a higher price is obtained in
SFSC, the average small share of produce sold through these channels
leads to no signicant impact on overall economic performance. Hence,
measuring the impact of SFSC participation on economic performance in
terms of sales volume and value surely would be more insightful than
sole participation.
Research also shows that the impact of participation in SFSC on
farmers’ performance greatly depends on farmers’ characteristics (e.g.
gender, age, education, experience, marketing skills, access to internet),
type of farm (mainly scale, specialty and location), the precise market-
ing strategy (DTC, DTR, a combination of various channels), and the
time-scale (short vs long-term effects). Bauman et al. (2019) and Mun-
dler and Jean-Gagnon (2019) show that return on assets and gross farm
income depend more on farmers’ management practices and farm spe-
cialty (i.e. fruit and vegetables, livestock, dairy) than on the specic
SFSC used. Still, Uematsu and Mishra (2011) nd different types of SFSC
to have differentiated impacts on gross farm income. Looking specif-
ically at the link between organic farming and DTC sales, Detre et al.
(2011) report that farmers who sell organic produce through DTC
channels experience slightly higher gross farm income than organic
farmers who do not. Yet, this contradicts ndings by Park (2010), who
show that a higher commitment to local sales (both through SFSC and
conventional channels) leads to lower gross farm income for organic
farmers. Ahearn et al. (2018) highlight that factors affecting farmers’
economic performance in SFSC vary between a short- and a long-term
measure. For instance, being a beginning farmer and selling through
SFSC seems to negatively affect gross farm income – a measure of short-
term performance - but to positively affect return on assets – a measure
of long-term performance. Overall, Bauman et al. (2018), Mundler and
Laughrea (2016) and Paul (2019) report strong variations in economic
performance across farmers using SFSC to sell their produce, with low
average performances.
Finally, several studies nd high costs associated with SFSC, espe-
cially from additional skills and labour requirements (Bauman et al.,
2019; Bauman et al., 2018; Hardesty and Leff, 2010; LeRoux et al., 2010;
Mundler and Jean-Gagnon, 2019). Still, evidence shows that these
additional labour costs may not per se hinder economic performance if
they are managed strategically (Bauman et al., 2019; Bauman et al.,
2018; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon, 2019). In fact, Feenstra et al. (2003)
nd that farmers in Iowa, New York, and California believe that selling
at farmers’ markets helps them improve their skills in customer re-
lations, marketing, and product pricing, in turn boosting their business
self-condence. However, some authors report a tendency of farmers’
self-exploitation in DTC channels in particular, due to their strong sense
of commitment towards consumers (Galt, 2013; Mundler and Jean-
Gagnon, 2019; Ostrom, 2007). In this respect, Opitz et al. (2019) high-
light that farmers participating in DTC channels substitute their inde-
pendence from the global market with a higher dependence on
consumers’ choices.
4.5. LFS increase local community ties
Economic sociology suggests that markets are socially constructed
institutions, rooted in cultural norms and meanings. This idea is
embodied in the concept of “social embeddedness”. Contrary to neo-
classical economic theory assuming rational economic behaviour purely
based on self-interest, economic behaviour is considered embedded in a
complex social fabric (Hinrichs, 2000). Food markets are particularly
suited for tightening such social fabrics, since food not only represents a
6
Value-added in a supply chain represents the difference between a pro-
duce’s nal selling price and the total cost of inputs used along the chain
(including production, transformation and marketing costs) (Kogut, 1985;
Ruben et al., 2007).
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
8
common necessity, but is also strongly rooted in culture (Christensen
and Phillips, 2016). As food market actors are brought closer together in
LFS, this proximity may create a context for even stronger social ties
within local communities.
Yet, marketness and instrumentalism too are dictating economic
behaviour (Block, 1990; Hinrichs, 2000). While the concept of market-
ness relates to the degree to which economic transactions are price-
driven, the concept of instrumentalism refers to the degree to which
self-interest places economic benets ahead of friendship, family ties, or
morality. In LFS, tensions between social embeddedness, marketness
and instrumentalism may occur, potentially undermining social ties
within local food communities (Hinrichs, 2000; Izumi et al., 2010). Sage
(2003) further argues that the overlap between social and monetary
motives for participating in LFS imposes certain obligations and re-
sponsibilities on transacting parties – producers commit to producing
quality food, while consumers commit to buying from engaged pro-
ducers or retailers – in turn leading to a sense of (undesired) “entan-
glement” between them.
Scholars mostly address this claim using qualitative methods, such as
semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations, and documen-
tation review. Some, however, do perform quantitative surveys to
evaluate local actors’ motives for participating in LFS, including social
factors. As for the other claims, most studies focus on SFSC.
Several studies investigate consumers’ motivations behind purchas-
ing locally produced food. Many of these studies report that consumers
who buy products in LFS do so partly to support local farmers, build
social relationships with producers (in the case of DTC channels), and
foster the well-being of their own community (Aprile et al., 2016; Aubry
and Kebir, 2013; Cerrada-Serra, 2018; Chiffoleau et al., 2019; De Ber-
nardi et al., 2020; Hinrichs and Kremer, 2002; Hunt, 2007; Kirwan,
2006; Lombardi et al., 2015; Megicks et al., 2012; Toler et al., 2009;
Winter, 2003). With a focus on the producers’ perspective, Izumi et al.
(2010) look into farm-to-school programmes in the USA. The authors
report that farmers sell their produce to schools not only to diversify
their marketing strategies, but also to contribute to social benets – by
improving children’s dietary habits and supporting the local commu-
nity. Investigating CSA schemes in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Ostrom
(2007) too nds that farmers get involved to contribute to larger social
benets.
More broadly, drawing on a case study of a farmers’ market in North
Carolina, Andreatta and Wickliffe (2002) reveal the role played by the
market as an “active contributor to the cultural dynamic within which
those transactions take place”. This is in line with Gillespie et al. (2007)
who investigate three farmers’ markets, in New York, Iowa, and Cali-
fornia. The authors show that these farmers’ markets represent socio-
economic institutions anchored in their community. Finally, based on
the investigation of a partnership between a cooperative and several
CSA groups in Italy, Chiffoleau et al. (2019) highlight the willingness of
participants to ensure the economic viability of the system while pur-
suing collective benets.
However, Zwart and Mathijs (2020) report that consumers partici-
pating in local food purchasing groups in Belgium (i.e. CSA scheme)
often do so to gain access to specic produce, rather than to boost social
cohesion. In fact, Albrecht and Smithers (2018), Baldi et al. (2019),
Kirwan (2006), and Tregear and Ness (2005) nd that both producers
and consumers only value reconnection as long as their own respective
interests are fullled – protability and control for producers, and access
to healthy food at an affordable price for consumers. Hence, practical
limitations to satisfying those interests (e.g. legislative barriers, missing
infrastructure, inconvenience of food purchases) may hinder the sta-
bility of newly formed community ties.
Finally, issues pertaining to the inclusiveness and social equity
within LFS have been raised. For instance, Zwart and Mathijs (2020)
report that local food purchasing groups in Belgium only seem to reach a
specic socio-economic prole, while it is harder for them to reach
ethnic minorities or people with limited income. Likewise, Hinrichs and
Kremer (2002) nd that CSA members in the US Midwest are on average
more advantaged in terms of income, occupation and education
compared to local or regional reference populations. In Vermont, Macias
(2008) shows that different DTC channels (CSA, organic farmers’ mar-
kets) have differentiated impacts on local communities in terms of social
inclusion and equitable access to healthy food. The author reports that
the high entry costs and word-of-mouth recruitment strategies of CSA
schemes tend to exclude individuals of low socio-economic status.
Organic farmers’ markets seem to reach a diverse population, but do not
focus on community building projects. Evidence regarding the exclusion
of less-advantaged consumers from conventional local chains (i.e. the
accessibility and affordability of local food sold in conventional retail
outlets) is essentially missing. Finally, in Vermont, Christensen and
Phillips (2016) report conicts between local “agripreneurs” (i.e.
growth-oriented agricultural entrepreneurs) and the rest of the com-
munity, feeling left out of the development of a novel LFS.
4.6. LFS benet the local economy
LFS could benet local economies through different mechanisms.
First, it is claimed that LFS induce the retention of local money. For
instance, spill-over effects, such as farmers’ markets attracting buyers
into local areas they would not otherwise visit, may result in additional
money spent in local businesses (Kneafsey et al., 2013; Martinez et al.,
2010). Second, non-agricultural activities such as agritourism are often
associated with LFS, contributing to the revitalisation of rural areas and
additional revenues. As part of the LFS, value-added processing of
regionally produced food too may boost local economic growth (Hughes
and Isengildina-Massa, 2015). Third, LFS may lead to a multiplier effect
for local employment. Still, certain jobs in conventional chains may be
lost when producers assume additional roles in the supply chain (pro-
cessing, packing and distributing). Furthermore, LFS may produce eco-
nomic losses for communities if they are missing out on opportunities to
benet from competitive advantages over other regions in the food
sector (Born and Purcell, 2006).
Most studies measuring the impact of LFS on local economies (in
terms of changes in agri-food sales, income and employment) use input-
output models, that allow for the analysis of interdependencies between
different economic sectors of a country or region during a xed period of
time (Malagon-Zaldua et al., 2018). One notable exception is a study by
Brown et al. (2014), who use economic growth models to investigate the
link between LFS, total agricultural sales, and real income per capita at
regional and national level. Strikingly, the selected impact studies rarely
include opportunity costs, except for Hughes et al. (2008) and Hughes
and Isengildina-Massa (2015). No causal study was found evaluating the
economic effects of the development of new local food initiatives.
Research mostly focusses on SFSC (particularly farmers’ markets), at a
regional level.
Using input-output models, Henneberry et al. (2009), Hodges et al.
(2014), Hughes et al. (2008), and Hughes and Isengildina-Massa (2015)
estimate the economic impact of either local food sales or farmers’
markets at state level in Oklahoma, Florida, South Carolina, and West
Virginia, respectively. The same approach is taken by Malagon-Zaldua
et al. (2018) who evaluate the economic contribution of ten farmers’
markets to the Basque Country’s (Spain) local economy. All ve studies
estimate the number of jobs generated and total sales value in LFS.
Although local economic impacts are found positive in most cases, they
are not compared to the estimated contribution of the global food system
to these specic local economies – for example, employment generated
by farmers’ markets compared to supermarkets in a particular region.
Hence, the reported gures remain purely indicative. Furthermore, the
different data collection methods used make it harder to compare across
studies, as estimates of farmers’ market sales based on consumers’ self-
reported expenditures are signicantly higher compared to estimates
based on farmers’ self-reported sales (Malagon-Zaldua et al., 2018;
Varner and Otto, 2008). Also, while Brown et al. (2014) nd that DTC
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
9
sales and agritourism did not make signicant contributions to total
agricultural sales and personal income in the USA (at national level)
between 2002 and 2007, the authors note that several counties did
experience a signicant change in associated farm sales per capita. Their
ndings highlight important differences in the impact of LFS on local
economies depending on local specicities.
Looking at the interaction between different local channels, Varner
and Otto (2008) warn that competition between nearby farmers’ mar-
kets may decrease per farmer sales. Similarly, in the Lombardy region
(Italy), Mazzocchi et al. (2020) nd that the coexistence of small food
stores and DTC channels may undermine participation of farmers and
consumers in the latter type of channels, as both offer similar products
and experiences.
Regarding LFS’ impact on local employment, Mundler and Laughrea
(2016) show a high contribution of farms participating in SFSC to local
employment: farms selling mainly through SFSC generate on average
0.75 full-time equivalents per cultivated hectare, versus 0.19 for farms
engaged primarily in conventional food channels. Yet, the authors
highlight that this higher contribution is likely linked to a lower labour
productivity on farms engaged in SFSC.
4.7. LFS foster environmentally-friendly production practices
Hedberg and Zimmerer (2020) introduce the concept of “socio-
ecological embeddedness” as an extension of the above-mentioned
concept of social embeddedness (claim 5). It is dened as “the entan-
glement of environmental practices with ongoing social relations”.
Socio-ecological embeddedness may explain how actors of LFS could
affect farmers’ production practices. For instance, consumers’ demand –
as a type of social relation in LFS – for healthy food may drive the
introduction or maintenance of more sustainable farming practices.
Hence, it is often believed that crops grown in LFS are more varied and
locally adapted, as opposed to specialised monocultures for export, that
lead to a narrowing of food crops’ diversity (Khoury et al., 2014). Crop
diversity is also said to have a positive effect on associated biodiversity.
7
Still, local production methods are not inherently more environmental-
friendly than export-oriented production (Born and Purcell, 2006; Hole
et al., 2005).
Studies on this claim use either large survey data, or a limited
number of semi-structured interviews with local food actors to investi-
gate the link between LFS and environmental-friendly practices, with a
focus on SFSC.
Several studies look at the inuence of consumers’ demand in LFS, as
reected in the concept of socio-ecological embeddedness. In Sweden
and Canada, respectively, Bj¨
orklund et al. (2009) and Mundler and
Laughrea (2016) nd that farmers who directly interact with consumers
are indeed encouraged to diversify their production in terms of the
number of crop varieties grown. In the apple sector in the USA, Goland
and Bauer (2004) report that sales in LFS incites farmers to diversify
their production by growing old local varieties, whose appearances do
not meet conventional channels’ criteria. Similarly, Cerrada-Serra
(2018) shows that local Alternative Food Networks in Spain and
Belgium are promoting agro-ecological practices, including the use of
polyculture techniques and the cultivation of traditional varieties of fruit
and vegetables. Still, Hedberg and Zimmerer (2020) nd that farmers at
a farmers’ market in the USA are not particularly inuenced by con-
sumers to switch to environmentally-friendly practices (e.g. pest, weed,
disease, and soil fertility management).
Other studies focus on the link between farmers’ participation in
SFSC and organic farming. In the wine and arboriculture sectors in
France, Aubert and Enjolras (2016) nd that organic farmers are more
likely to sell part of their production through SFSC than non-certied
farmers, and conversely (i.e. farmers selling through SFSC are more
likely to be organic certied). This is in line with Mundler and Laughrea
(2016) who report a higher share of organic certied farmers partici-
pating in SFSC compared to other channels in Quebec. Yet, Chen et al.
(2019) nd that farmers adopting organic practices in the USA are less
likely to use SFSC, while the opposite effect is insignicant (i.e. partic-
ipation in SFSC does not inuence farmers’ decision to adopt organic
production methods). These results may indicate differences across
countries in the link between SFSC and organic farming.
More broadly, Schoolman (2019) reports that the increase in the
number of farms and sales value in SFSC between 1997 and 2012 is
negatively associated with spending on pesticides in the USA. However,
the magnitude of the relationship declined over time; hence it is unclear
whether current SFSC are pushing farmers to reduce their pesticide use.
Also, based on a case study in France, Gilg and Battershill (2000) state
that the difference in the adoption of environmentally-friendly practices
(including the use of hedges, organic farming, traditional species grown,
etc.) between farmers using SFSC and farmers who do not is insufcient
to claim that SFSC are fostering more environmentally sustainable
production systems.
Finally, three studies were found addressing the issue of associated
biodiversity. The rst study investigates the case of local beer value
chains in Bavaria (Germany), based on regional malting barley culti-
vation. This regional variety is a rather extensive crop with a short
growing period, which allows for the cultivation of cover crops, in turn
leading to the preservation of associated biodiversity and cultural
landscapes (Maier et al., 2020). The second study focuses on two natural
parks in Spain and Italy and shows that associated local food initiatives –
including a local food label – fosters biodiversity and landscape con-
servation at the regional level (Pinna, 2016). The third study highlights
a high associated biodiversity maintained around diverse farms
participating in SFSC in Sweden (Bj¨
orklund et al., 2009). However, the
results are neither causal, nor compared to farms who do not use SFSC.
4.8. LFS help mitigate climate change
LFS are claimed to help mitigate climate change based on the concept
of food miles, which is a measure of how far food travels between the
producer and nal consumer (Weber and Matthews, 2008). Intuitively,
it may be assumed that reducing food miles will decrease greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions associated with food transport, in turn diminishing the
impact on climate change. There are two ways in which this claim can be
considered: by looking at the relative contribution of food miles to
global GHG emissions, and by investigating the difference between the
amount of GHG generated by global and local food supply chains.
To begin with, it has been shown that food transport is not a major
driver of climate change. Food systems contribute about 26% to global
GHG emissions, and, within food systems, GHG emissions linked to
transport merely represent 6%. Conversely, the farm stage represents
61% of food systems’ GHG emissions (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Here,
it is important to note that these emissions vary greatly at the production
stage, both between products and between production methods (Ave-
tisyan et al., 2014). Generally, animal-based foods generate massively
more GHG than plant-based foods at the farm stage – for instance,
producing 1 kg of beef generates about 11 and 56 times more GHG as 1
kg of rice and 1 kg of peas, respectively (Poore and Nemecek, 2018;
Ritchie, 2020). It is important to note that these emissions do not include
those linked to feed production and feed transport, which represent 6%
of total GHG emissions originating from food systems (i.e. as much as the
share of food transport) (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Thus, the pro-
duction methods and origin of feed may play as important a role in food
products’ impact on climate change as food transport only (Bava et al.,
2014; Eriksson et al., 2005; Guerci et al., 2013). Also, using energy-
intensive methods to grow or store produce for several months (e.g.
greenhouses, refrigeration for storage) increases GHG emissions
7
Species and ecosystems that help to create and maintain suitable conditions
for production, for example by pollinating crops, maintaining soil fertility,
controlling pests or providing habitats.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
10
substantially. Often, more efcient food production achieved abroad (i.
e. in-season cultivation in favourable environmental conditions) offsets
the impact of international transport required to import food that could
be produced locally off-season (Brodt et al., 2013; Carlsson-Kanyama
et al., 2003; Hospido et al., 2009). Hence, switching diets may have a
signicantly higher effect on climate change than reducing food miles
(Pradhan et al., 2020; Stoessel et al., 2012; Weber and Matthews, 2008).
Viewed in this way, increased interest in and knowledge of food systems
through participation in LFS may help mitigate climate change by
incentivising consumers to purchase low-impact food products (i.e.
plant-based, locally adapted, seasonal foods) (Kneafsey et al., 2013;
Svenfelt and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2010).
Evidence on the difference between GHG emitted by global and local
food supply chains is mostly based on life cycle assessments (LCAs).
Across the selected LCA studies, system boundaries (stages of the supply
chain comprised in the assessment), functional units (e.g. 1 kg, 100 g of
protein), data type (primary or secondary) and calculation methods
differ substantially, making it difcult to compare results. The studies
show that GHG emissions associated with food supply chains mostly
depend on three factors (besides the product itself and production
methods, as discussed above): supply chain coordination, the efciency
of the consumer’s transport mode for food purchases, and the efciency
of the transport mode for imports (Mundler and Rumpus, 2012; Van
Hauwermeiren et al., 2007). Based on these factors and on the LCA’s
methodology, studies nd that LFS trigger more (Carlsson-Kanyama
et al., 2003; Hospido et al., 2009; Loiseau, 2020; Majewski et al., 2020;
Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019; Mancini et al., 2019; Schlich and
Fleissner, 2005; Schwarz et al., 2016; Sundkvist et al., 2001), less
(Blanke and Burdick, 2005; Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003; Hospido
et al., 2009; Jones, 2002; Mil`
a Canals et al., 2007; Sim et al., 2007), or
equivalent amounts (Brodt et al., 2013; Hospido et al., 2009; Mundler
and Rumpus, 2012; Van Hauwermeiren et al., 2007; Wallgren, 2006) of
GHG emissions than global food systems. Therefore, it is not correct to
state that LFS automatically generate less GHG than global food systems.
First, the efciency of supply chain coordination results in differen-
tiated impacts on GHG emissions. While products may travel fewer miles
from producer to consumer in LFS, fuel efciency per unit of product
matters too, and is usually achieved with larger loads and logistical ef-
ciencies in conventional chains and global food systems (Brunori et al.,
2016; Coley et al., 2009; Loiseau, 2020; Mundler and Rumpus, 2012).
Hence, LFS may lead to fewer GHG emissions if their transport and
storage methods are optimised, and if the stored and traded quantities
are substantial. This is referred to as the “ecology of scale” by Schlich
and Fleissner (2005).
Second, the stage between the retail point and the consumer’s home
was found to represent a large share of total GHG emissions associated
with food supply chains (Loiseau, 2020; Majewski et al., 2020; Pretty
et al., 2005; Sundkvist et al., 2001). Coley et al. (2009) show that if a
consumer drives a round-trip distance of over 6.7 km to purchase veg-
etables at a local farm shop, their GHG emissions will likely be greater
than if they had used a conventional channel (including cold storage,
packaging, transport to a regional hub, and home delivery). Similarly,
other studies nd that on-farm sales generate on average more GHG than
off-farm sales due to consumers’ individual purchasing trips (Loiseau,
2020; Majewski et al., 2020). Still, if consumers use low-energy trans-
port modes to collect their food (e.g. by bike or on foot), this source of
GHG emissions vanishes.
Third, the transport mode used for food imports may play a role in
the difference between global and local supply chains’ GHG emissions.
Air freight has a massively higher environmental impact than other
transport modes (e.g. truck, vessel, rail), but only represents 0.16% of
global food miles (Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Van Hauwermeiren et al.,
2007). Thus, this factor likely has a limited inuence on the overall
difference in GHG emissions originating from LFS and global food
systems.
5. Conclusions
Over the past years, LFS have been put under the spotlight by policy-
makers and researchers. Based on their many purported benets, policy-
makers have promoted them as a lever for change towards more inclu-
sive, resilient and sustainable food systems. This study assessed the
scientic evidence conrming or refuting these claims. It started by
showing the confusion surrounding LFS, as there is no universal de-
nition and LFS can be interpreted in various ways. Local food systems
are often interchangeably used with SFSC, but these two concepts do not
overlap entirely. Despite the active promotion of LFS in North America
and Europe, this remains a niche market that has not substantially
grown over the past years.
Overall, we found that the impact of LFS on different social, eco-
nomic and environmental factors highly depends on the type of supply
chain under assessment, with important differences across product types
and countries. Our review refutes the idea that local food is inherently
good. The evidence for the eight claims can be summarized as follows.
First, consumers who participate in LFS have a better health status
linked to an increased consumption of fresh, unprocessed food – mainly
fruit and vegetables. However, a causal link cannot be drawn from
existing studies. Second, consumers are willing to pay a premium for
local over non-local food, although important variations in WTP exist
depending on consumers’ characteristics, buying habits and particular
products. Third, farmers seem to feel recognised for their work in LFS,
which is often the main reason for them to participate in local food
channels. Fourth, while studies mostly nd low farm economic perfor-
mance associated with participation in LFS – partly due to high costs
linked to additional skills and labour inputs –, the degree to which
farmers do (or do not) benet from this marketing choice depends on a
multitude of factors and is highly case specic. Fifth, although evidence
highlights consumers’ and farmers’ wish to foster the well-being of their
community in LFS, it also reveals that their social bond only holds as
long as their own respective interests are fullled (i.e. protability and
control for farmers, and access to healthy, affordable food for con-
sumers). Moreover, several studies point out social inclusiveness issues,
with socio-economically disadvantaged people sometimes excluded
from certain local SFSC. Sixth, studies focusing on the impact of LFS on
local economies provide limited insight into the validity of this claim
due to a lack of consistency in methodological approaches. Seventh, LFS
were shown to be associated with environmentally-friendly production
practices (including organic farming) in most cases, but with differences
across countries. Eight, the fact that LFS may help mitigate climate
change through decreased food miles is not backed up by scientic ev-
idence as food transport is not a major driver of climate change, and
GHG emissions originating from food supply chains (local and global)
differ substantially based on supply chain coordination, the efciency of
the consumer’s transport mode for food purchases, and the efciency of
the transport mode for imports.
It is worth noting important shortcomings in the studies addressing
claims on LFS. Researchers mostly use non-representative samples of
consumers and farmers in surveys, with an over-representation of socio-
economically advantaged consumers, and farmers already engaged in
LFS. Moreover, there are very few causal studies (with a counterfactual),
demonstrating the true impact of LFS on several factors. Also, most
studies focus on the USA; hence, results cannot be generalised to all
countries. In addition, there is a lot of emphasis on SFSC, while the
contribution of conventional supply chains (e.g. through supermarkets)
to LFS is almost entirely omitted. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
there is a lack of comprehensive cross-country comparable data on LFS
(e.g. local sales volume and value at farm, regional and national level)
limiting the possibility of drawing generalisable conclusions on their
benets and drawbacks.
Based on our ndings, we suggest that policy-makers should invest in
cross-country comparable data collection on LFS (especially in Europe),
which would allow the scientic community to perform robust causal
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
11
analyses on their impacts on society. For instance, this can be achieved
by adding questions on supply chain participation to the farm accoun-
tancy data network (FADN) surveys, the principal tool to monitor farms’
income and business activities in the EU. Furthermore, if LFS are to
contribute to the transition towards more sustainable food systems, the
question of their up-scaling needs to be addressed. In this sense, the
integration of local food products in local institutions’ food programmes
(e.g. schools, hospitals) – promoted by city councils – could represent
valuable opportunities and should be investigated further by re-
searchers. In addition, studying retailers’ initiatives to source and
actively promote local food in conventional supply chains might offer
new insights on how LFS can be more inclusively shaped.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge funding from the Fond National de la Recherche
Scientique (Belgium), through a FRIA Doctoral Grant.
References
Abatekassa, G., Peterson, H.C., 2011. Market access for local food through the
conventional food supply chain. Int. Food Agribusiness Manag. Rev. 14, 20.
Adalja, A., Hanson, J., Towe, C., Tselepidakis, E., 2017. An examination of consumer
willingness to pay for local products. Agricult. Resource Econ. Rev. 44, 253–274.
Ahearn, M.C., Liang, K., Goetz, S., 2018. Farm business nancial performance in local
foods value chains. Agricult. Fin. Rev. 78, 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-
08-2017-0071.
Albrecht, C., Smithers, J., 2018. Reconnecting through local food initiatives? Purpose,
practice and conceptions of ‘value’. Agric. Hum. Values 35, 67–81. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10460-017-9797-5.
Allen, J.E., Rossi, J., Woods, T.A., Davis, A.F., 2017. Do Community supported
agriculture programmes encourage change to food lifestyle behaviours and health
outcomes? New evidence from shareholders. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 70–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2016.1177866.
Andreatta, S., Wickliffe, W., 2002. Managing farmer and consumer expectations: a study
of a North Carolina farmers market. Hum. Organ. 61, 167–176. https://doi.org/
10.17730/humo.61.2.a4g01d6q8djj5lkb.
Angella, M., 2016. Work, recognition and subjectivity: relocating the connection
between work and social pathologies. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 19, 340–354. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1368431015594443.
Aprile, M.C., Caputo Jr., V., Nayga, R.M., 2016. Consumers’ preferences and attitudes
toward local food products. J. Food Prod. Mark. 22, 19–42.
Aubert, M., 2015. The Determinants of Selling through a Short Food Supply Chains: An
Application to the French Case. Presented at the Journ´
ees de Recherches en Sciences
Sociales (JRSS). INRA; CIRAD, Nancy, France, p. 25.
Aubert, M., Enjolras, G., 2016. Do short food supply chains go hand in hand with
environment-friendly practices? An analysis of French farms. IJARGE 12, 189.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2016.076932.
Aubry, C., Kebir, L., 2013. Shortening food supply chains: a means for maintaining
agriculture close to urban areas? The case of the French metropolitan area of Paris.
Food Policy 41, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.006.
Avetisyan, M., Hertel, T., Sampson, G., 2014. Is local food more environmentally
friendly? The GHG emissions impacts of consuming imported versus domestically
produced food. Environ. Resour. Econ. 58, 415–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10640-013-9706-3.
Baldi, L., Bertoni, D., Migliore, G., Peri, M., 2019. How alternative food networks work in
a metropolitan area? An analysis of solidarity purchase groups in northern Italy.
Agric. Econ. 7, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0139-3.
Bauman, A., Thilmany McFadden, D., Jablonski, B.B.R., 2018. The nancial performance
implications of differential marketing strategies: exploring farms that pursue local
markets as a Core competitive advantage. Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev. 47, 477–504.
https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2017.34.
Bauman, A., Thilmany, D., Jablonski, B.B.R., 2019. Evaluating scale and technical
efciency among farms and ranches with a local market orientation. Renew. Agric.
Food Syst. 34, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000680.
Bava, L., Sandrucci, A., Zucali, M., Guerci, M., Tamburini, A., 2014. How can farming
intensication affect the environmental impact of milk production? J. Dairy Sci. 97,
4579–4593. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7530.
Benedek, Z., Fert˝
o, I., Moln´
ar, A., 2018. Off to market: but which one? Understanding the
participation of small-scale farmers in short food supply chains—a Hungarian case
study. Agric. Hum. Values 35, 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9834-
4.
Berning, J.P., 2012. Access to local agriculture and weight outcomes. J. Agric. Resour.
Econ. 41, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500004184.
Bimbo, F., Bonanno, A., Nardone, G., Viscecchia, R., 2015. The Hidden Benets of Short
Food Supply Chains: Farmers’ Markets Density and Body Mass Index in Italy, p. 17.
Bj¨
orklund, J., Westberg, L., Geber, U., Milestad, R., Ahnstr¨
om, J., 2009. Local selling as a
driving force for increased on-farm biodiversity. J. Sustain. Agric. 33, 885–902.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10440040903303694.
Blanke, M., Burdick, B., 2005. Food (miles) for thought - energy balance for locally-
grown versus imported apple fruit (3 pp). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 12, 125–127.
https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2005.05.252.
Block, F., 1990. Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse. University
of California Press. ed, Berkeley.
Born, B., Purcell, M., 2006. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food Systems in Planning
Research. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 26, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0739456X06291389.
Brodt, S., Kramer, K.J., Kendall, A., Feenstra, G., 2013. Comparing environmental
impacts of regional and national-scale food supply chains: a case study of processed
tomatoes. Food Policy 42, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2013.07.004.
Brown, 2003. Consumers’ preferences for locally produced food: a study in Southeast
Missouri. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18, 12.
Brown, J.P., Goetz, S.J., Ahearn, M.C., Liang, C., 2014. Linkages between community-
focused agriculture, farm sales, and regional growth. Econ. Dev. Q. 28, 5–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413506610.
Brunori, G., Galli, F., Barjolle, D., 2016. Are local food chains more sustainable than
global food chains? Considerations for Assessment 27.
Campbell, B.L., Lesschaeve, I., Bowen, A.J., Onufrey, S.R., Moskowitz, H., 2010.
Purchase drivers of Canadian consumers of local and organic produce. HortScience
45, 1480–1488.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekstr¨
om, M.P., Shanahan, H., 2003. Food and life cycle energy
inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efciency. Ecol. Econ. 44,
293–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00261-6.
Carpio, C.E., Isengildina-Massa, O., 2009. Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown
products: the case of South Carolina. Agribusiness 25, 412–426. https://doi.org/
10.1002/agr.20210.
Carroll, K.A., Bernard, J.C., Pesek, J.D., 2013. Consumer preferences for tomatoes: the
inuence of local, organic, and state program promotions by purchasing venue.
J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38, 379–396.
Cerrada-Serra, P., 2018. Exploring the contribution of alternative food networks to food
security. A comparative analysis. Food Security 10, 1371–1388.
Cesaro, L., Dries, L., Ihle, R., Marongiu, S., Peerlings, J., Poetschki, K., Schioppa, A.,
2020. Impact of farmers’ engagement in food quality schemes and short food supply
chains on farm performance (no. deliverable 4.2). Strength2Food, 83 pages.
Chang, K.-L., Xu, P., Underwood, K., Mayen, C., Langelett, G., 2013. Consumers’
willingness to pay for locally produced ground beef: a case study of the rural
northern Great Plains. J. Int. Food Agribusiness Marketing 25, 42–67. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08974438.2013.724002.
Charatsari, C., Kitsios, F., Stafyla, A., Aidonis, D., Lioutas, E., 2018. Antecedents of
farmers’ willingness to participate in short food supply chains. Br. Food J. 120,
2317–2333. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2017-0537.
Chen, B., Saghaian, S., Tyler, M., 2019. Substitute or complementary: relationship
between U.S. farmers’ adoption of organic farming and direct marketing. BFJ 122,
531–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2019-0016.
Chiffoleau, Y., Millet-Amrani, S., Rossi, A., Rivera-Ferre, M.G., Merino, P.L., 2019. The
participatory construction of new economic models in short food supply chains.
J. Rural. Stud. 68, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.019.
Christensen, B., Phillips, R., 2016. Local food systems and community economic
development through the lens of theory. Community Dev. 47, 638–651. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15575330.2016.1214609.
Coff, C., Korthals, M., Barling, D., 2008. Ethical traceability and informed food choice, in:
ethical traceability and communicating food. Springer Science, pp. 1–18.
Coley, D., Howard, M., Winter, M., 2009. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: a
comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy 34,
150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.11.001.
De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., Venuti, F., Foscolo, E., 2020. How to avoid the tragedy of
alternative food networks (AFNs)? The impact of social capital and transparency on
AFN performance. BFJ 122, 2171–2186. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2019-
0537.
de Roest, K., Ferrari, P., Knickel, K., 2018. Specialisation and economies of scale or
diversication and economies of scope? Assessing different agricultural development
pathways. J. Rural. Stud. 10.
De Schutter, O., 2017. The political economy of food systems reform. Eur. Rev. Agric.
Econ. 44, 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx009.
De-Magistris, T., Gracia, A., 2016. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for sustainable food
products: the case of organically and locally grown almonds in Spain. J. Clean. Prod.
118, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.050.
Demartini, E., Gaviglio, A., Pirani, A., 2017. Farmers’ motivation and perceived effects of
participating in short food supply chains: evidence from a north Italian survey.
Agric. Econ. Czech 63, 204–216. https://doi.org/10.17221/323/2015-AGRICECON.
Detre, J.D., Mark, T.B., Mishra, A.K., Adhikari, A., 2011. Linkage between direct
marketing and farm income: a double-hurdle approach. Agribusiness 27, 19–33.
https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20248.
Edwards-Jones, G., Mil`
a Canals, L., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G.,
Hounsome, B., Cross, P., York, E.H., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., Harris, I.M.,
Edwards, R.T., Day, G.A.S., Tomos, A.D., Cowell, S.J., Jones, D.L., 2008. Testing the
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
12
assertion that ‘local food is best’: the challenges of an evidence-based approach.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.008.
Eriksen, S.N., 2013. Dening local food: constructing a new taxonomy – three domains of
proximity. Acta Agricult. Scandinavica Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 63, 47–55. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09064710.2013.789123.
Eriksson, I.S., Elmquist, H., Stern, S., Nybrant, T., 2005. Environmental systems analysis
of pig production - the impact of feed choice (12 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10,
143–154. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.06.160.
European Commission, 2020. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS a Farm to Fork
Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System.
Evans, A.E., Jennings, R., Smiley, A.W., Medina, J.L., Sharma, S.V., Rutledge, R.,
Stigler, M.H., Hoelscher, D.M., 2012. Introduction of farm stands in low-income
communities increases fruit and vegetable among community residents. Health Place
18, 1137–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.04.007.
Fan, X., G´
omez, M.I., Coles, P.S., 2019. Willingness to pay, quality perception, and local
foods: the case of broccoli. Agricult. Resource Econ. Rev. 48, 414–432.
Feenstra, G.W., Lewis, C.C., Clare Hinrichs, C., Gillespie Jt, G.W., Hilchey, D., 2003.
Entrepreneurial outcomes and enterprise size in US retail farmers‘ markets. Am. J.
Altern. Agric. 18, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1079/AJAA2003046.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016. Overview of Community
Supported Agriculture in Europe. FAO [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.fao.
org/family-farming/detail/en/c/416085/ (accessed 1.12.21).
Galt, R., 2013. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: explaining Farmers’
earnings and self-exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Econ. Geogr. 89,
341–365.
Geref, G., Humphrey, J., Sturgeon, T., 2005. The governance of global value chains.
Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 12, 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805.
Geyik, O., Hadjikakou, M., Karapinar, B., Bryan, B.A., 2021. Does global food trade close
the dietary nutrient gap for the world’s poorest nations? Global Food Security 28,
100490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100490.
Gilg, A.W., Battershill, M., 2000. To what extent can direct selling of farm produce offer a
more environmentally friendly type of farming? Some evidence from France.
J. Environ. Manag. 60, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0383.
Gillespie, G., Hilchey, D., Hinrichs, C., Feenstra, G., 2007. Farmers’ Markets as keystones
in rebuilding local and regional food systems. In: Remaking the North American
Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. University of Nebraska Press, pp. 65–83.
Giraud, K.L., Bond, C.A., Bond, J.J., 2005. Consumer preferences for locally made
specialty food products across northern New England. Agricult. Resource Econ. Rev.
34, 204–216.
Goland, C., Bauer, S., 2004. When the apple falls close to the tree: local food systems and
the preservation of diversity. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19, 228–236. https://doi.org/
10.1079/RAFS200487.
Government of Canada, 2019. Local Food Infrastructure Fund: Step 1. What this program
offers [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agricultural-programs-a
nd-services/local-food-infrastructure-fund/?id=1560701480448 (accessed 1.12.21).
Government of Canada, C.F.I.A, 2013. Local Food Claims Interim Policy [WWW
Document]. URL. https://www.inspection.gc.ca/food-label-requirements/labelling/
industry/origin-claims-on-food-labels/local-food-claims/eng/1368135927256/
1368136146333.
Gracia, A., 2014. Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice
experiment. Empir. Econ. 47, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-013-0738-
x.
Gracia, A., de Magistris, T., Nayga, R.M., 2012. Importance of social inuence in
Consumers’ willingness to pay for local food: are there gender differences?
Agribusiness 28, 361–371.
Gracia, A., Barreiro-Hurl´
e, J., L´
opez-Gal´
an, B., 2013. Are local and organic claims
complements or substitutes? A consumer preferences study for eggs. J. Agric. Econ.
65, 49–67.
Grebitus, C., Lusk Jr., J.L., Nayga, R.M., 2013. Effect of distance of transportation on
willingness to pay for food. Ecol. Econ. 9.
Guerci, M., Bava, L., Zucali, M., Sandrucci, A., Penati, C., Tamburini, A., 2013. Effect of
farming strategies on environmental impact of intensive dairy farms in Italy. J. Dairy
Res. 80, 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029913000277.
Hardesty, S.D., Leff, P., 2010. Determining marketing costs and returns in alternative
marketing channels. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 25, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1742170509990196.
Harvard University, S. of P.H, 2019. Processed Foods and Health [WWW Document]. The
Nutrition Source. URL. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/process
ed-foods/ (accessed 1.12.21).
Hasselbach, J.L., Roosen, J., 2015. Consumer heterogeneity in the willingness to pay for
local and organic food. J. Food Prod. Mark. 21, 608–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10454446.2014.885866.
Hedberg, R.C., Zimmerer, K.S., 2020. What’s the market got to do with it? Social-
ecological embeddedness and environmental practices in a local food system
initiative. Geoforum 110, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.022.
Hempel, C., Hamm, U., 2016. How important is local food to organic-minded consumers?
Appetite 96, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.036.
Henneberry, S.R., Whitacre, B., Agustini, H.N., 2009. An evaluation of the economic
impacts of Oklahoma farmers markets. J. Food Distribution Res. 40, 64–78.
Hinrichs, C., 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct
agricultural marketଝ. J. Rural. Stud. 9.
Hinrichs, C., Kremer, K., 2002. Social inclusion in a Midwest local food system project.
J. Poverty 6, 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J134v06n01_04.
Hodges, A.W., Stevens, T.J., Wysocki, A.F., 2014. Local and regional food Systems in
Florida: values and economic impacts. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 46, 285–298.
Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, P.V., Evans, A.D., 2005.
Does organic farming benet biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 122, 113–130. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.018.
Honneth, A., 2010. Work and Recognition: A Redenition, in: The Philosophy of
Recognition: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Lexington Books, Plymouth,
pp. 223–240.
Hospido, A., Mil`
a Canals, L., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G., Clift, R.,
2009. The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: a case study of environmental
and social aspects. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-009-0091-7.
Hu, W., Batte, M.T., Woods, T., Ernst, S., 2012. Consumer preferences for local
production and other value-added label claims for a processed food product. Eur.
Rev. Agric. Econ. 39, 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr039.
Hughes, D.W., Isengildina-Massa, O., 2015. The economic impact of farmers’ markets
and a state level locally grown campaign. Food Policy 54, 78–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.001.
Hughes, D.W., Brown, C., Miller, S., McConnell, T., 2008. Evaluating the economic
impact of Farmers’ Markets using an opportunity cost framework. J. Agric. Appl.
Econ. 40, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800028091.
Hunt, A.R., 2007. Consumer interactions and inuences on farmers’ market vendors.
Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170507001597.
Inderhees, P.G., Theuvsen, L., 2009. Farmers’ strategies in globalizing markets: empirical
results from Germany. J. Int. Food Agribusiness Market. 21, 253–268. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08974430802589691.
Izumi, B.T., Wynne Wright, D., Hamm, M.W., 2010. Market diversication and social
benets: motivations of farmers participating in farm to school programs. J. Rural.
Stud. 26, 374–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.02.002.
James, J.S., Rickard, B.J., Rossman, W.J., 2009. Product differentiation and market
segmentation in applesauce: using a choice experiment to assess the value of organic,
local, and nutrition attributes. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38, 357–370. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1068280500009618.
Jones, 2002. An environmental assessment of food supply chains: a case study on dessert
apples. Environ. Manag. 30, 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2383-6.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., 2004. A case study of local food and its routes to
market in the UK. Br. Food J. 106, 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00070700410529582.
Khoury, C.K., Bjorkman, A.D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L.,
Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L.H., Struik, P.C., 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food
supplies and the implications for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111,
4001–4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111.
Kinnunen, P., Guillaume, J.H.A., Taka, M., D’Odorico, P., Siebert, S., Puma, M.J.,
Jalava, M., Kummu, M., 2020. Local food crop production can full demand for less
than one-third of the population. Nat. Food 1, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43016-020-0060-7.
Kirwan, J., 2006. The interpersonal world of direct marketing: examining conventions of
quality at UK farmers’ markets. J. Rural. Stud. 12.
Kiss, K., Ruszkai, C., Sz˝
ucs, A., Koncz, G., 2020. Examining the role of local products in
rural development in the light of consumer preferences—results of a consumer
survey from Hungary. Sustainability 12, 5473. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12135473.
Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balazs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., Bos, E.,
Sutton, G., Blackett, M., 2013. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in
the EU: A State of Play of their Socio Economic Characteristics., JCR Scientic and
Policy Reports. European Commission.
Kogut, B., 1985. Designing global strategies: comparative and competitive value-added
chains. Sloan Management Rev. 26, 15–28.
Koutsos, T.M., Menexes, G.C., Dordas, C.A., 2019. An efcient framework for conducting
systematic literature reviews in agricultural sciences. Sci. Total Environ. 682,
106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.354.
Leonardo, W.J., Bijman, J., Slingerland, M.A., 2015. The windmill approach: combining
transaction cost economics and farming systems theory to analyse farmer
participation in value chains. Outlook Agric 44, 207–214. https://doi.org/10.5367/
oa.2015.0212.
LeRoux, M.N., Schmit, T.M., Roth, M., Streeter, D.H., 2010. Evaluating marketing
channel options for small-scale fruit and vegetable producers. Renew. Agric. Food
Syst. 25, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170509990275.
Loiseau, E., 2020. To what extent are short food supply chains (SFSCs) environmentally
friendly? Application to French apple distribution using Life Cycle Assessment.
J. Clean. Prod. 13.
Lombardi, A., Migliore, G., Verneau, F., Schifani, G., Cembalo, L., 2015. Are “good guys”
more likely to participate in local agriculture? Food Qual. Prefer. 45, 158–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.005.
Loureiro, M.L., Hine, S., 2002. Discovering niche markets: a comparison of consumer
willingness to pay for local (Colorado grown), organic, and GMO-free products.
J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 34, 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800009251.
Low, S.A., Adalja, A., Beaulieu, E., Key, N., Martinez, S., Melton, A., Perez, A.,
Ralston, K., Stewart, H., Suttles, S., Vogel, S., Jablonski, B., 2015. Trends in U.S. local
and regional food systems (report to congress no. AP-068). U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Macias, T., 2008. Working toward a just, equitable, and local food system: the social
impact of community-based agriculture. Soc. Sci. Q. 89, 1086–1101. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00566.x.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
13
Maier, P., Klein, O., Schumacher, K.P., 2020. Ecological benets through alternative food
networks? Prospects of regional barley-malt-beer value chains in Bavaria, Germany.
J. Clean. Prod. 265, 121848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121848.
Majewski, E., Komerska, A., Kwiatkowski, J., Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Wąs, A.,
Sulewski, P., Goła´
s, M., Pogodzi´
nska, K., Lecoeur, J.-L., Tocco, B., T¨
or¨
ok, ´
A.,
Donati, M., Vittersø, G., 2020. Are short food supply chains more environmentally
sustainable than long chains? A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the eco-efciency of
food chains in selected EU countries. Energies 13, 4853. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13184853.
Malagon-Zaldua, E., Begiristain-Zubillaga, M., Onederra-Aramendi, A., 2018. Measuring
the economic impact of Farmers’ Markets on local economies in the Basque Country.
Agriculture 8, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8010010.
Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Majewski, E., Wąs, A., Borgen, S.O., Csillag, P., Donati, M.,
Freeman, R., Ho`
ang, V., Lecoeur, J.-L., Mancini, M.C., Nguyen, A., Saïdi, M.,
Tocco, B., T¨
or¨
ok, ´
A., Veneziani, M., Vittersø, G., Wavresky, P., 2019. Measuring the
economic, environmental, and social sustainability of short food supply chains.
Sustainability 11, 4004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154004.
Mancini, M., Menozzi, D., Donati, M., Biasini, B., Veneziani, M., Arni, F., 2019.
Producers’ and Consumers’ perception of the sustainability of short food supply
chains: the case of Parmigiano Reggiano PDO. Sustainability 11, 721. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su11030721.
Marsden, T., Banks, J., Bristow, G., 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploring their
role in rural development. Sociol. Rural. 40, 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9523.00158.
Martinez, S., Hand, M., Pra, M.D., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S.,
Lohr, L., Low, S., Newman, C., 2010. Local food systems: concepts. Impacts, and
Issues 88.
Mazzocchi, C., Corsi, S., Ruggeri, G., 2020. The coexistence of local and global food
supply chains: the Lombardy region case study. Agriculture 10, 540. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agriculture10110540.
Megicks, P., Memery, J., Angell, R.J., 2012. Understanding local food shopping:
unpacking the ethical dimension. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 264–289. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0267257X.2012.658838.
Mil`
a Canals, L., Cowell, S.J., Sim, S., Basson, L., 2007. Comparing domestic versus
imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 14, 338–344.
https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.04.412.
Miller, S.R., Knudson, W.A., 2014. Nutrition and cost comparisons of select canned,
frozen, and fresh fruits and vegetables. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 8, 430–437. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1559827614522942.
Monson, J., Mainville, D., Kuminoff, N., 2008. The decision to direct market: an analysis
of small fruit and specialty-product Markets in Virginia. J. Food Distribution Res. 11.
Mundler, P., Jean-Gagnon, J., 2019. Short food supply chains, labor productivity and fair
earnings: an impossible equation? Renewable Agricult. Food Systems 1–13.
Mundler, P., Laughrea, S., 2016. The contributions of short food supply chains to
territorial development: a study of three Quebec territories. J. Rural. Stud. 45,
218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.04.001.
Mundler, P., Rumpus, L., 2012. The energy efciency of local food systems: a comparison
between different modes of distribution. Food Policy 37, 609–615. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.006.
Nganje, W.E., Hughner, R.S., Lee, N.E., 2011. State-branded programs and consumer
preference for locally grown produce. Agricult. Resource Econ. Rev. 40, 20–32.
Nystr¨
om, M., Jouffray, J.-B., Norstr¨
om, A.V., Crona, B., Søgaard Jørgensen, P.,
Carpenter, S.R., Bodin, ¨
O., Galaz, V., Folke, C., 2019. Anatomy and resilience of the
global production ecosystem. Nature 575, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-
019-1712-3.
Onken, K.A., Bernard, J.C., Pesek, J.D., 2011. Comparing willingness to pay for organic,
natural, locally grown, and state marketing program promoted foods in the mid-
Atlantic region. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 40, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1068280500004500.
Onozaka, Y., McFadden, D.T., 2011. Does local labeling complement or compete with
other sustainable labels? A conjoint analysis of direct and joint values for fresh
produce claim. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/
aar005.
Opitz, I., Zoll, F., Zasada, I., Doernberg, A., Siebert, R., Piorr, A., 2019. Consumer-
producer interactions in community-supported agriculture and their relevance for
economic stability of the farm – an empirical study using an analytic hierarchy
process. J. Rural. Stud. 68, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.011.
Ostrom, M., 2007. Community supported agriculture as an agent of change: is it
working?. In: Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for
Sustainability. University of Nebraska Press, pp. 99–120.
Park, Lohr, 2010. The inuence of local selling decisions on organic farm incomes.
J. Agricult. Food Indust. Organization 8. https://doi.org/10.2202/1542-0485.1303.
Park, Paudel, Sene, 2018. Sales impacts of direct marketing choices: treatment effects
with multinomial selectivity. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 45, 433–453. https://doi.org/
10.1093/erae/jbx038.
Park, Mishra, Wozniak, 2014. Do farm operators benet from direct to consumer
marketing strategies? Agric. Econ. 45, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/
agec.12042.
Paul, M., 2019. Community-supported agriculture in the United States: social, ecological,
and economic benets to farming. J. Agrar. Chang. 19, 162–180. https://doi.org/
10.1111/joac.12280.
Penrose, E., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford Basic Blackwell.
Peterson, H., 2001. Strategic choice along the vertical coordination continuum. Int. Food
Agribusiness Manag. Rev 4, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7508(01)
00079-9.
Pinna, S., 2016. Alternative food networks, agro-biodiversity and landscape protection:
lessons from two rural parks. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 3, 455–462. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21681376.2016.1244488.
Plakias, Z.T., Demko, I., Katchova, A.L., 2019. Direct marketing channel choices among
US farmers: evidence from the local food marketing practices survey. Renew. Agric.
Food Syst. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000085.
Poore, J., Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers
and consumers. Science 360, 987–992.
Pradhan, P., Kriewald, S., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Benton, T.G., Fischer, G., Kropp, J.P.,
2020. Urban food systems: how regionalization can contribute to climate change
mitigation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 10551–10560. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.0c02739.
Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The Core competence of the corporation. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 14.
Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., Morison, J.I.L., 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an
assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.001.
Prigent-Simonin, A.-H., H´
erault-Fournier, C., 2005. The role of trust in the perception of
the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct relationships
between producer and consumer. Aof. https://doi.org/10.4000/aof.204.
Printezis, I., Grebitus, C., 2018. Marketing channels for local food. Ecol. Econ. 152,
161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.021.
Profeta, A., Hamm, U., 2019. Do consumers care about local feedstuffs in local food?
Results from a German consumer study. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
88, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.12.003.
Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., Banks, J., 2003. Understanding alternative food networks:
exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ. Plan. A
35, 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3510.
Rickman, J.C., Barrett, D.M., Bruhn, C.M., 2007. Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen
and canned fruits and vegetables. Part 1. Vitamins C and B and phenolic compounds.
J. Sci. Food Agric. 87, 930–944. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2825.
Rindeisch, A., 2020. Transaction cost theory: past, present and future. AMS Rev 10,
85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00151-x.
Ritchie, H., 2020. You Want to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of your Food? Focus on
What you Eat, Not whether your Food Is Local [WWW Document]. Our World in
Data. URL. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local.
Ruben, R., van Boekel, M., van Tilburg, A., Trienekens, J. (Eds.), 2007. Tropical Food
Chains: Governance Regimes for Quality Management. Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Sadler, R.C., 2016. Strengthening the core, improving access: bringing healthy food
downtown via a farmers’ market move. Appl. Geogr. 67, 119–128. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.12.010.
Sage, C., 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’
networks in south-West Ireland. J. Rural. Stud. 14.
Salois, M.J., 2012. Obesity and diabetes, the built environment, and the ‘local’ food
economy in the United States, 2007. Econ. Hum. Biol. 10, 35–42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ehb.2011.04.001.
Schlich, E.H., Fleissner, U., 2005. The ecology of scale: assessment of regional energy
turnover and comparison with global food. Case Studies 5.
Schneider, M.L., Francis, C.A., 2005. Marketing locally produced foods: consumer and
farmer opinions in Washington County. Nebraska. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 20,
252–260. https://doi.org/10.1079/RAF2005114.
Sch¨
onhart, M., Penker, M., Schmid, E., 2009. Sustainable local food production and
consumption: challenges for implementation and research. Outlook Agric 38,
175–182. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009788632313.
Schoolman, E.D., 2019. Do direct market farms use fewer agricultural chemicals?
Evidence from the US census of agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 34, 415–429.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000758.
Schwarz, J., Schuster, M., Annaert, B., Maertens, M., Mathijs, E., 2016. Sustainability of
global and local food value chains: an empirical comparison of Peruvian and Belgian
asparagus. Sustainability 8, 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040344.
Sim, S., Barry, M., Clift, R., Cowell, S.J., 2007. The relative importance of transport in
determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing: a case study of
fresh produce supply chains. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 422–431. https://doi.org/
10.1065/lca2006.07.259.
Stephens, E.C., Martin, G., van Wijk, M., Timsina, J., Snow, V., 2020. Editorial: impacts
of COVID-19 on agricultural and food systems worldwide and on progress to the
sustainable development goals. Agric. Syst. 183, 102873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2020.102873.
Stoessel, F., Juraske, R., Pster, S., Hellweg, S., 2012. Life cycle inventory and carbon
and water FoodPrint of fruits and vegetables: application to a Swiss retailer. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 46, 3253–3262. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2030577.
Sundkvist, Å., Jansson, A., Larsson, P., 2001. Strengths and limitations of localizing food
production as a sustainability-building strategy — an analysis of bread production
on the island of Gotland, Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 37, 217–227. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00277-9.
Svenfelt, Å., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 2010. Farmers’ markets – linking food consumption
and the ecology of food production? Local Environ. 15, 453–465. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13549831003735411.
Teece, D.J., 2019. A capability theory of the rm: an economics and (strategic)
management perspective. N. Z. Econ. Pap. 53, 1–43.
Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D., 2013. An analysis of the territorial factors affecting milk
purchase in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 27, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2012.06.005.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103226
14
Toler, S., Briggeman, B.C., Lusk, J.L., Adams, D.C., 2009. Fairness, farmers markets, and
local production. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91, 1272–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8276.2009.01296.x.
Torres, A.P., Marshall, M.I., Alexander, C.E., Delgado, M.S., 2017. Are local market
relationships undermining organic fruit and vegetable certication? A bivariate
probit analysis. Agric. Econ. 48, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12326.
Tregear, A., Ness, M., 2005. Discriminant analysis of consumer interest in buying locally
produced foods. J. Mark. Manag. 21, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1362/
0267257053166811.
Uematsu, H., Mishra, A.K., 2011. Use of direct marketing strategies by farmers and their
impact on farm business income. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 40, 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1068280500004482.
Umberger, W.J., Thilmany McFadden, D.D., Smith, A.R., 2009. Does altruism play a role
in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and
regionally produced beef? Agribusiness 25, 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/
agr.20194.
UN General Assembly, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (No. A/RES/70/1). https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02.
Van Hauwermeiren, A.V., Coene, H., Mathijs, E., Engelen, G., 2007. Energy lifecycle
inputs in food systems: a comparison of local versus mainstream cases. J. Environ.
Policy Plan. 9, 31–51.
Vapa-Tankosi´
c, J., Ignjatijevi´
c, S., Kiurski, J., Milenkovi´
c, J., Milojevi´
c, I., 2020. Analysis
of Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic and local honey in Serbia.
Sustainability 12, 4686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114686.
Varner, T., Otto, D., 2008. Factors affecting sales at Farmers’ Markets: an Iowa study.
Rev. Agric. Econ. 30, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00398.x.
W¨
ageli, S., Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2016. Organic consumers’ preferences and
willingness-to-pay for locally produced animal products: preferences for locally
produced animal products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 40, 357–367. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ijcs.12262.
Wallgren, C., 2006. Local or global food markets: a comparison of energy use for
transport. Local Environ. 11, 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13549830600558598.
Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food
choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3508–3513.
Williamson, O.E., 1979. Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual
relations. J. Law Econ. 22, 233–261.
Willis, D.B., Carpio, C.E., Boys, K.A., 2016. Supporting LFS development through food
price premium donations: a policy proposal. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 48, 192–217.
https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2016.10.
Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.
J. Rural. Stud. 19, 23–32.
Young, S., 2013. Transaction Cost Economics. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility.
Yue, C., Tong, C., 2009. Organic or local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh
Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives. Horts 44,
366–371. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.2.366.
Zwart, T.A., Mathijs, E., 2020. Exploring emergent practices in alternative food
networks: Voedselteams in Belgium. J. Rural. Stud. S0743016719312173 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.049.
Zwart, T.A., Wertheim-Heck, S.C.O., 2021. Retailing local food through supermarkets:
cases from Belgium and the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 300, 8.
L. Enthoven and G. Van den Broeck
